Quote from: RuskieGirl on January 21, 2005, 01:25:49 AMToo bad this article is at least 5 years old and Boalt is only on its third Dean since Kay. I don't believe either of these facts has any relevance.
Too bad this article is at least 5 years old and Boalt is only on its third Dean since Kay.
thnks for some great info. The fact that the LSAT is a better predictor of grades on speeded tests in very interesting. I do not think it is irrelevant, however. When you pay a lawyer $200/hour, you don't want him taking his sweet time -- you want him to be speedy.
Quote from: maricutie on January 26, 2005, 08:06:39 AMNot necessarily if:(1) you're the firm or(2) such speediness comes at the consequence of errors, mistakes or otherwise sub-par performance.The LSAT is a measure of 1) speed; and 2) not making errors, mistakes, or otherwise sub-par performance.Lets say there are two people: "A" and "B". They can both do LSAT 180 level work and they can both do it without making any mistakes. However, it takes person A 3 hours to do the work and it takes person B 30 hours to do the work. If you hire them at your firm and pay them both the same amount of money, then you will be paying 10 times as much for Bs work because person A could do perfect work on 10 cases in the time it would take person B to do perfect work on 1 case.
Not necessarily if:(1) you're the firm or(2) such speediness comes at the consequence of errors, mistakes or otherwise sub-par performance.
Some else just posted something to the effect that your LSAT score is a better predictor of your performance on timed (i.e., speeded) law school tests than on take-home (i.e. unspeeded) law school tests. The implication was that the LSAT is therefore a not good indication of something or other.I countered that life is speeded. People pay lawyers by the hour and it makes sense to evaluate them according to speeded tests. Sure anyone can get all the answers right on anything if they have all the time in the world, but we don't have all the time in the world.